I have been told, on various people on various occasions, that those people believe I need to be right. Ive been thinking a bit about what, specifically, that means, and whether or not its true. A lot hinges on what it means when someone says I need to be right. A. If need to be right means that I value the truth, and that its important to me to hold opinions that are in line with objective reality, then its true that I need to be right. I dont want to hold beliefs that arent true. Perhaps obviously, I hold the opinions I have because I believe they are true. If I believed I was wrong, then I would believe other things, or at least abandon the wrong thing Id been believing until I could find something that seemed more in line with reality. At least I hope I would. B. But need to be right might also mean that I reject or ignore evidence that doesnt support the beliefs I hold. Id like to believe that I dont do that, but nearly everyone does. Entrenchment and confirmation bias are pretty universal human traits, and I know Im by no means free of them. However, it seems to me that when Im presented with the you need to be right argument, that argument is not usually accompanied by evidence that countervails whatever belief were talking about. Of course, that could seem to me to be the case because of confirmation bias or entrenchment. Its hard to say. C. It might also mean that needing to be right means that I enjoy proving other people wrong. This is both not true and true. Its *not* true because I dont enjoy or revel in other peoples embarrassment, shame, discouragement, sadness or confusion when they have to abandon a sincerely held belief in the face of countervailing evidence. Its true because I do enjoy it when Im able to help someone who believes something that I know isnt true (such as that homeopathy is medicine, or evolution isnt real) come to understand what actually is true. That means theyve learned something, and thats awesome. D. However, I often feel like the statement that I need to be right comes at the end of a discussion in which Ive made a case based on evidence and logic for the thing I believe, and the other person hasnt. In this case, me needing to be right seems to mean that I require another person to present facts and logic that (in my view) adequately counter or refute my version of facts and logic before Im willing to change my conclusions, or accept another persons conclusions. Which is to say, just because you (or I) hold an opinion, doesnt mean that opinion is just as valid or true as any other opinion--no matter how completely awesome I may think you are as a person. Everyone, including me, believes things that are wrong, and the only way to tell which one of us is wrong is to share why we believe what we think is right and decide who has the most facts and the better argument on our side. In the end, I want us all to be right. I want us all to believe things that are true. I want you to abandon your wrong beliefs, and me to abandon mine, and both of us to figure out together whats actually right. I dont want both of us to go around nodding and tolerating things we know arent true just because we dont want to hurt another persons feelings or because its somehow unseemly to hold strong opinions or argue for them. So if you say something is true that I know not to be, I will challenge it and ask you to defend it, and Ill tell you why I think its wrong. Unless youre someone who doesnt matter to me, or who isnt interesting to talk to, or who I dont believe to be clever enough or flexible enough to change your mind or learn new things, or knowledgeable enough to teach me new things. In that case, I will keep quiet, leave you alone and let you keep on being wrong. If I argue with you, its a compliment. Usually. (Unless I think youre *way* smarter than me, and then Ill try to just listen and ask questions. So if I dont argue with you, either I dont like you, or Im intimidated by you--you get to guess which.) So I will accept the judgement that I need to be right by the definition in point A above. I will also accept it by the definition in B, though if thats the definition youre using, I would really appreciate you instead saying something like, Hey Eve, you just totally ignored my argument, rather than just telling me I need to be right. If I ignored or misunderstood your argument, you can call me on that directly. I dont accept it in sense C, except in the limited sense that I always think its awesome when someone, including me, learns something new, even when that results in them rejecting something they previously believed. But I reject sense D. If you have evidence to support what you believe, and can blast my argument out of the water and show me that my logic was flawed or maybe I actually got my information from an Internet meme, or I just didnt know something I should have, thats awesome too. But if I poke holes in your argument and you dont have an effective counter, telling me that I need to be right isnt actually an argument against my belief or in favour of yours. It is, however, an effective way of shutting down discussion and telling me that you dont have a way to defend what you believe.
Posted on: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 07:33:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015